Madhubalaben D/O Balashankar ... vs Purveshbhai Mohanbhai Kacha
2021 Latest Caselaw 4252 Guj

        R/CR.RA/211/2021                                     ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 211 of 2021
==========================================================
             MADHUBALABEN D/O BALASHANKAR MEHTA
                            Versus
                PURVESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KACHA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JEET RAJYAGURU FOR MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                             Date : 16/03/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has made following prayer, more particularly, prayer 7(b) which reads as under:

"7(b) Allow this revision by quashing and setting aside Judgment

and order passed learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,

Junagadh, Dist: Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2019 dated 05.10.2020 as well as order passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate,e First Class, Junagadh passed in Criminal Case

No.3989 of 2013 dated 03.01.2019 and further be pleased to

convict the original accused for the charges levelled against

him in the interest of justice."

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru for Mr.Chintan Popat, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent - State.

3. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the

R/CR.RA/211/2021 ORDER

learned Court below has committed serious error of law in not appreciating the depositions of the witnesses, more particularly, the Investigating Officer and failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in its true and letter spirit and thus failed to consider the basis ingredients of offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Not only that, the learned Court below did not properly examine the photograph and medical certificates produced at Exhibit-12, 16 and 21 and had the learned Court below properly examined the oral and documentary evidence in its true and letter spirit, negligence of respondent No.2 could be very well established and would be proved to be sufficient to establish the basic ingredients of Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Lastly, it is submitted that minor contradictions and / or omissions would not make the prosecution case fatal as the same can be ignored in light of other material evidence on record of the case and therefore, it is submitted that both the impugned orders are bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside.

4. Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and considering the scope of Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code based on oral and documentary evidence, the findings recorded by the learned appeal Court, more particularly, paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, learned Advocate for the petitioner could not point out any impropriety or illegality in the said findings. On reading of the said findings in paragraph 14 recorded by the learned appeal Court, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity and ultimate outcome of the trial i.e. acquittal of respondent No.2 for the alleged offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code is just and proper and would not call for any interference. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is unable to point out any evidence contrary to the findings arrived at by the learned appeal Court.

R/CR.RA/211/2021 ORDER

Thus, the present revision application being devoid of merits and therefore the same deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected at the admission stage.

(S.H.VORA, J) sompura